# Delhi Police Opposes Bail Pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in High Court, Citing Strict UAPA Provisions > Delhi Police has submitted a formal reply in the High Court opposing the fresh bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The police argued that key conditions mandated earlier by the Supreme Court remain unfulfilled under strict UAPA provisions. **Type:** article · **Category:** Delhi · **Published:** 2026-08-27 · **Source:** TrendKia **Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/delhi/north-east-delhi-hinsa-mamale-men-umar-khalid-aura-sharjeel-imam-ki-jamanata-arji-ka-delhi-police-ne-kiya-virodha-high-court-men-b-23060 · **Language:** English **Tags:** Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Delhi Riots 2020, Delhi Police, Delhi High Court, UAPA, Bail Petition In connection with the 2020 North-East Delhi riots conspiracy case, Delhi Police has submitted a comprehensive response to the Delhi High Court strongly opposing the fresh bail applications filed by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. In its formal submission, the police categorized both individuals as the primary masterminds behind the organized violence. Asserting that the newly filed bail pleas are legally unsustainable and misleading, law enforcement authorities urged the court not to entertain the petitions at the present procedural stage. ## Police Arguments and Strategic Conspiracy Allegations The submission came during the High Court hearing following instructions issued on July 31, which directed Delhi Police to file their official stance. Addressing the bench, police counsel stated that investigative agencies possess substantial documentary and testimonial evidence showing that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam executed strategic blueprints for the unrest. The police emphasized that their actions extended far beyond peaceful demonstrations, involving deliberate crowd mobilization, logistical organization, and tactical coordination to ignite violent clashes. ## Supreme Court January Mandate and Stringent UAPA Provisions Bolstering its objections, Delhi Police cited the Supreme Court order delivered earlier this year in January. The police highlighted that while the apex court granted bail to several co-accused individuals in the same matter, it explicitly denied relief to Khalid and Imam after determining that their structural involvement was significantly different and more severe. Furthermore, police pointed out that the prosecution is anchored under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), a statutory provision that imposes exceptionally strict criteria and legal hurdles against granting bail. ## Unfulfilled Preconditions and the Context of 2020 Delhi Violence A central pillar of the police opposition relies on procedural preconditions set by the Supreme Court during its January ruling. The highest court had specified that fresh bail applications could only be introduced under two distinct circumstances: either after the completion of depositions by key prosecution witnesses or upon the passage of one full year from the date of the Supreme Court judgment. Delhi Police maintained that neither condition has been fulfilled as of today. The underlying legal proceedings stem from the 2020 riots in North-East Delhi triggered during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which resulted in over 50 deaths and left hundreds injured. Both accused have remained incarcerated since their initial arrest. ## What this means for you This ongoing judicial process regarding the Delhi riots conspiracy case carries distinct implications for the legal system and public safety. - **Across India:** The rigorous application of UAPA provisions demonstrates how statutory legal bars make securing bail extremely difficult in cases involving allegations of public disruption. It underlines the necessity of strict compliance with judicial mandates. - **In Delhi:** For residents of North-East Delhi, which witnessed severe unrest in 2020, sustained legal proceedings are central to maintaining accountability and public order. Local communities track these judicial developments closely. - **Procedural Adherence:** The insistence on procedural preconditions clarifies that court timelines and witness deposition milestones must be satisfied before custody status can be re-evaluated. - **Public Order and Security:** Law enforcement's firm stance underscores an emphasis on preventing civic unrest and reinforcing strict measures against mob mobilization. ## Questions & Answers ### 1. What argument did Delhi Police present regarding Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the High Court? Delhi Police informed the High Court that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were the primary masterminds of the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy, supported by evidence of planning and crowd mobilization. ### 2. Why is the police opposing their fresh bail applications? The police argued that the mandatory conditions set by the Supreme Court remain unfulfilled and that strict restrictions under UAPA Section 43D(5) apply. ### 3. What preconditions were established by the Supreme Court for seeking fresh bail? The apex court directed that fresh bail pleas could only be submitted after key prosecution witnesses complete their depositions or after one year elapses from the date of that order. ### 4. What is the background of the 2020 Delhi violence case? The case relates to the communal violence in North-East Delhi during CAA protests in 2020, which resulted in over 50 deaths and left hundreds injured. --- _TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._